Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb;204(Pt A):107609.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107609.

Public preferences for marine plastic litter management across Europe

Affiliations

Public preferences for marine plastic litter management across Europe

Salma Khedr et al. Ecol Econ. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Plastic pollution is one of the most challenging problems affecting the marine environment of our time. Based on a unique dataset covering four European seas and eight European countries, this paper adds to the limited empirical evidence base related to the societal welfare effects of marine litter management. We use a discrete choice experiment to elicit public willingness-to-pay (WTP) for macro and micro plastic removal to achieve Good Environmental Status across European seas as required by the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Using a common valuation design and following best-practice guidelines, we draw comparisons between countries, seas and policy contexts. European citizens have strong preferences to improve the environmental status of the marine environment by removing and reducing both micro and macro plastic litter and implementing preventive measures favouring a pan-European approach. However, public WTP estimates differ significantly across European countries and seas. We explain why and discuss implications for policymaking.

Keywords: Choice experiment; Good environmental status; Macro plastic; Marine litter; Marine strategy framework directive; Micro plastic; Plastic litter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the 8 European countries surveyed in this study and the 4 regional European seas bordered by these countries.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Example choice card.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Choice behavior across the alternatives and the country samples (in %). Note: The number of observations per sample is equal to the number of respondents (see Table 1) times the number of choices. For Denmark, for example, the number of observations is 6000 (1000 × 6).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Marginal WTP estimates (in € per month per household) based on the choice models presented in Table 3.

References

    1. Aanesen M., Falk-Andersson J., Vondolia G.K., Borch T., Navrud S., Tinch D. Valuing coastal recreation and the visual intrusion from commercial activities in Arctic Norway. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018;153:157–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.017. - DOI
    1. Abate T.G., Börger T., Aanesen M., Falk-Andersson J., Wyles K.J., Beaumont N. Valuation of marine plastic pollution in the European Arctic: applying an integrated choice and latent variable model to contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2020;169 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106521. - DOI
    1. Addamo A.M., Laroche P., Hanke G. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Joint Research Center; 2017. Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe, EUR 29249 EN.
    1. Ahtiainen H., Vanhatalo J. The value of reducing eutrophication in European marine areas — a Bayesian meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2012;83:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.010. - DOI
    1. Ahtiainen H., Artell J., Czajkowski M., Hasler B., Hasselström L., Huhtala A., Meyerhoff J., Smart J.C.R., Söderqvist T., Alemu M.H., Angeli D., Dahlbo K., Fleming-Lehtinen V., Hyytiäinen K., Karlõševa A., Khaleeva Y., Maar M., Martinsen L., Nõmmann T., Pakalniete K., Oskolokaite I., Semeniene D. Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea – a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. J. Environ. Econ. Pol. 2014;3(3):278–305. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2014.901923. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources